testingiauh912fandomcom-20200214-history
Washback (ZAHRA FAYAZ)
ZAHRA FAYAZ Introduction: It is common to claim the existence of washback (the impact of a test on teaching) and to declare that tests can be powerful determiners, both positively and negatively, of what happens in classrooms. (Wall & Alderson, 1993, p. 41) The washback effects of large-scale testing programs on instruction are widely discussed.In the view of instructors and students, such tests contain what students must learn andtherefore what must be taught- a reasonable view, given that the tests in many casesrepresent the language hurdle students must clear before continuing their academic careers. Tests are often perceived as exerting a conservative force which impedes progress. As Andrews andFullilove (1994) point out, "Not only have many tests failed to change, but they have continued to exert apowerful negative washback effect on teaching" . These authors also note that "educationalistsoften decry the 'negative' washback effects of examinations and regard washback as an impediment toeducational reform or 'progressive' innovation in schools" . As Heyneman (1987) hascommented, "It's true that teachers teach to an examination. National officials have three choices withregard to this 'backwash effect': they can fight it, ignore it, or use it". Andrews (1994a) concurs: "Although a great deal has been said and written about washback, there isin fact relatively little empirical evidence for its existence" . Similarly, Shohamy (1993a) acknowledges that "while the connection between testing and learning iscommonly made, it is not known whether it really exists and, if it does, what the nature of its effect is". In 1993, Alderson and Wall noted that the existence and importance of washback had been widely asserted. Defining and Describing Washback: Definitions of washback are nearly as numerous as the people who write about it. These definitionsrange from simple and straight-forward to very complex. Some take a narrow focus on teachers andlearners in classroom settings, while others include reference to tests' influences on educational systemsand even on society in general. Some descriptions stress intentionality while others refer to theapparently haphazard and often unpredictable nature of washback.In an important paper on testing listening comprehension, Buck (1988) describes the apparent effectof Japanese university entrance examinations on English-language learning in Japan. He describeswashback as follows: There is a natural tendency for both teachers and students to tailor their classroomactivities to the demands of the test, especially when the test is very important to thefuture of the students, and pass rates are used as a measure of teacher success. Thisinfluence of the test on the classroom (referred to as washback by language testers) is, ofcourse, very important; this washback effect can be either beneficial or harmful. Thus Buck's definition stresses the impact of a test on what teachers and students do in classrooms. Shohamy (1992) also focuses on washback in terms of language learners as test-takers when shedescribes "the utilization of external language tests to affect and drive foreign language learning in theschool context" (p. 513). She notes that "this phenomenon is the result of the strong authority of externaltesting and the major impact it has on the lives of test takers". Shohamy (1993a, p. 4) summarized four key definitions that are useful inunderstanding the washback concept: 1. Washback effect refers to the impact that tests have on teaching and learning. 2. Measurement driven instruction refers to the notion that tests should drive learning. 3. Curriculum alignment focuses on the connection between testing and the teaching syllabus. 4. Systemic validity implies the integration of tests into the educational system and the need to demonstrate that the introduction of a new test can improve learning. More recently, Bachman and Palmer (1996, pp. 29-35) have discussed washback as a subset of atest's impact on society, educational systems, and individuals. They state that test impact operates at twolevels: the micro level (i.e., the effect of the test on individual students and teachers) and the macro level(the impact on society and its educational systems). Bachman and Palmer (1996, p. 35) note, however, that washback is a more complex phenomenon thansimply the effect of a test on teaching and learning. Instead, they feel the impact of a test should beevaluated with reference to the contextual variables of society's goals and values, the educational systemin which the test is used, and the potential outcomes of its use. A Model of Washback: To provide a structure for this review, we will use a model of washback that is based on aframework suggested by Hughes (1993): "In order to clarify our thinking about backwash, it is helpful, to distinguish between participants, process and product in teaching and learning, recognizingthat all three may be affected by the nature of a test" . In the Hughes framework, participants include language learners and teachers, administrators,materials developers, and publishers, "all of whose perceptions and attitudes toward their work may beaffected by a test" (ibid.). The term process covers "any actions taken by the participants which maycontribute to the process of learning" (ibid.). According to Hughes, such processes include materialsdevelopment, syllabus design, changes in teaching methods or content, learning and/or test-takingstrategies, etc. Finally, in Hughes' framework, product refers to "what is learned (facts, skills, etc.) andthe quality of learning (fluency, etc.)" (ibid.). He continues,Thetrichotomy into participants, process and product allows us to construct a basicmodel of backwash. The nature of a test may first affect the perceptions and attitudes ofthe participants towards their teaching and learning tasks. These perceptions andattitudes in tum may affect what the participants do in carrying out their work (process),including practicing the kind of items that are to be found in the test, which will affect thelearning outcomes, the product of that work. Here Hughes stresses the participants' perceptions and attitudes and how these factors affect what theydo.